Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Undocumented Immigrants Make America Safer

Don't believe the falsehoods peddled by Trump and Sessions.

From the beginning of his campaign for president, Donald Trump portrayed illegal immigration as a forest fire that threatens to spread rapidly and engulf us all. Mexicans, he charged, are "bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists." He thought Americans should be afraid.

He's still blaring that message. Last month, he tweeted angrily that a "caravan" of Hondurans was marching northward through Mexico to pour across the Rio Grande. "Getting more dangerous," he warned.

In San Diego on Monday, Attorney General Jeff Sessions echoed the alarm. Raising the specter that we could be "overwhelmed" by a "stampede" of invaders, he vowed to "finally secure this border so that we can get the American people the safety and peace of mind that they deserve."

When these two are done in Washington, they can go into the business of making horror movies—which, like these claims, are not rooted in reality. The Honduran "caravan" is more scared than scary, consisting of a bedraggled, footsore group of unfortunates who fled violence and poverty in the hope of gaining asylum in the United States.

Irineo Mujica, who works for an advocacy group that is helping them, told The New York Times: "There are 300 kids and 400 women. Babies with bibs and milk bottles, not armaments. How much of a threat can they be?" Besides, they don't have to stampede over the border. They are legally allowed to arrive at immigration checkpoints and apply for sanctuary.

But for Trump and Sessions, anyone who comes here without a visa evokes fear and hatred. The president and his attorney general ignore the real dangers posed by most undocumented foreigners: They will fill jobs that Americans don't want, learn English, pay taxes, and stay out of trouble. Chilling, huh?

The president relishes lurid tales of the criminal gang MS-13. Last year, he said, "They stomp on their victims. They beat them with clubs. They slash them with machetes, and they stab them with knives. They have transformed peaceful parks and beautiful quiet neighborhoods into bloodstained killing fields."

No one disputes that MS-13 is a violent gang, but it's just one of many that plague American cities. All that distinguishes this one is that many of its members came from Central America, some without documents—allowing Trump to blame its villainy on illegal immigration. He thinks undocumented immigrants are criminals by definition and therefore a hellish danger.

But he's railing against a threat that exists largely in his mind. Trump failed to notice that the big wave of unauthorized immigration that came in the 1990s coincided with a plunge in crime and violence.

In 1990, there were about 3.5 million undocumented foreigners in this country, and the national murder rate was 9.4 per 100,000 people. When the undocumented population peaked at 12.2 million in 2007, the murder rate was 5.6 per 100,000—a decline of 40 percent—and it has fallen more since then.

Far from generating crime, this group appears to suppress it. A groundbreaking new state-by-state study covering 1990 to 2014 by sociologists Michael Light of the University of Wisconsin-Madison and Ty Miller of Purdue in the journal Criminology concludes that "undocumented immigration over this period is generally associated with decreasing violence."

In another study, Light, Miller, and Brian Kelly (also of Purdue) found that "increased undocumented immigration was significantly associated with reductions in drug arrests, drug overdose deaths, and DUI arrests."

The question Light and his colleagues examined, he told me, is: "Does undocumented immigration make us less safe?" The answer: "No." If anything, he says, the evidence "suggests the opposite."

Policy analyst Alex Nowrasteh of the libertarian Cato Institute examined the evidence on crime from Texas. He found that unauthorized foreigners were about half as likely as native-born Americans to be convicted of a crime and one-quarter less likely to be convicted of murder. Their overall arrest rate was 40 percent below that of people born in this country.

What this all shows is that Trump and Sessions are peddling myths. Central American refugees are not about to mount a mass assault on the border. And on the whole, far from posing a danger to public safety, the presence of undocumented foreigners enhances public safety. MS-13 is as representative of them as John Wayne Gacy is of Illinoisans.

This alleged menace is much like the monsters that small children fear. It's scary until you turn on the light and look under the bed.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "But for Trump and Sessions, anyone who comes here without a visa evokes fear and hatred. "

    But for Reason writers, any American who loves America evokes fear and hatred.

  • Hackmaschine Mutter||

    A country that has solved most of its horrible problems deserves praise, not to be lambasted for those that remain.

  • MichaeI Hihn||

    Which country was that?

  • ||

    Nothing on earth is ever quite comparable to that utopia in your head, does it?

  • ThomasD||

    Undocumented immigrants are also floor wax AND a dessert topping.

  • JoeBlow123||

    Fuck you Steve Chapman.

  • jaastark||

    great post thanks for sharing this wonderful post
    tutuapp apk
    tutuapp for mac

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Undocumented Immigrants Make America Safer

    Hahaha. I see. Steve Chapman is Tulpa.

    Every illegal that crosses the US border illegally is violating US law. In other words, 100% of illegal aliens are criminals.

  • SQRLSY One||

    Fine them each for $1.53... Let the punishment fit the crime! Problem solved! Yer welcome!

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Nope. Deport them and make them follow the immigration rules like everyone else trying to get into the USA.

  • Juice||

    The law is the law, even gun control laws. Follow them like everyone else or gtfo.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Gun control laws are unconstitutional.

    In other words, they violate the supreme law of the land.

    Follow the Constitution or GTFO.

  • GrandTurion||

    As opposed to immigration laws which are perfectly constitutional, as per... which article/amendment was that again?

  • dchang0||

    Too low.

    The cost of legal immigration is much higher. Here is the list of various fees: https://www.uscis.gov/forms/our-fees

    If a person enters the country illegally, they are depriving the treasury of those fees. (Essentially the same as a fare dodger on public transit.)

  • sarcasmic||

    Arbitrary laws are arbitrary.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Nothing more arbitrary than a non-American crossing a national boundary that has been in place for more than 150+ years which the residents of that nation deemed illegal and had their legislature enact said immigration laws.

    I will add /s since you might think that I support your arbitrary opposition to said immigration laws.

  • MichaeI Hihn||

    And more residents deemed it no big deal, and other representatives talk amnesty. I'm guessing those are the wrong sorts who are wrong though, so we can pay them no mind for the purposes of science or this discussion.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Unless Congress changes the current immigration laws, Trump is supposed to enforce immigration law and decide who can and cannot enter the USA.

    He's doing a great job too.

  • MichaeI Hihn||

    The law is just something written down by a politician. We enjoy it when politicians write down things we like and forget about "me today; you tomorrow", except handing power over lives to politicians doesn't seem to end any other way.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Your comment is just something written down by, well, you.

    You should ask sarcasmic to borrow his goal post moving machine.

  • MichaeI Hihn||

    You, on the other hand, have been very consistent in support of politicians wielding power over the objections of your fellow citizens. I can acknowledge that.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    If you live in the USA, you give up certain natural rights to be protected by the US and state Constitutions.

    A Constitutional majority rules through duly elected representatives.

  • BYODB||

    Personally, here in Texas, we actually remember the Alamo (well, some of us) which isn't to say that we hate Mexico but rather we still teach what being under the Mexican flag was like.

    A lot of men and women died to create the border with Mexico, but no I'm sure borders don't exist for reasons. Sheesh.

    Make the case for why we need so many day laborers, please. So far I haven't heard many good ones, and it seems Reason authors want to pretend that it's only surgeons and nuclear physicists that are crossing the border. That, and some of them genuinely seem to believe that illegal immigrants in particular are genetically or morally superior to any other group. An odd claim to make, to be sure.

    Honest question, if all the people crossing the southern border were Iranians and Hezbollah would they still feel the same way about national borders? Not to imply that our current crop of illegal immigrants are terrorists or anything, they're definitely not, but I wonder if they would be intellectually consistent on this issue.

    I suspect they would not.

    By all means have a discussion about where the line should be drawn on who comes to the U.S., but saying 'there is no line' is...not going to go over with literally anyone on the centrist right or the centrist left for different reasons. The extremist minority of both sides will have...different and frankly insane opinions on the subject.

  • retiredfire||

    Those in favor of the illegal invasion would be fine if they were Iranians and Hezbollah, because then the demise of the United States, which is what they desire, would happen faster.
    The open-borders/amnesty crowd hate America and want to see a rapid change.
    It is as simple as that.

  • McGehee||

    But while they're on the books they need to be obeyed even by those that disagree with them. The way to overturn laws you don't like is at the ballot box or in court -- not in some human trafficker's panel van.

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    Re: loveconstitution1789,

    Every illegal that crosses the US border illegally is violating US law. In other words, 100% of illegal aliens are criminals.


    There's now no question that your comment name is meant as sarcasm as you show the same compulsion for criminalizing the most innocuous of behaviors as quickly as a Soviet bureaucracy in a roll.

    A crime, here in the real world of honest adults, is an act of aggression against an individual or his/her property. Not having the required transit papers from Leviathan is a made-up crime, a phony crime, like it was a "crime" at one time for whites to lay with blacks.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Repeal/change the constitutional laws or follow the constitutional laws or suffer the consequences.

    Those are your options.

    Good luck.

  • MichaeI Hihn||

    Social contract!

  • loveconstitution1789||

    You can certainly void your side of the agreement by leaving the USA or changing the Constitution.

    Adios amigo!

  • MichaeI Hihn||

    I never agreed. That's the deal with social contract. It's an entitlement to that which was never attained.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Are you an American? If so you agree. You fall under the protections and laws created by the Constitution.

    If you're not an American, then you will be deported if you don't have a legal reason for being in the USA.

  • MichaeI Hihn||

    I am an American, and I do not agree. Here's the deal: You get to have an opinion on that, and yet you don't get to decide mine. You can say and even insist that I do, and I'll just keep on not doing it.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Luckily, there are a majority of Americans like me who do want to limit illegals.

    Great thing about a Constitutional Democratic Republic, is that the Constitution gives the power to regulate immigration and naturalization to government and my silent majority has voted for that power to be enacted.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    Or just revise what the Constitution actually says on the matter in your head? Much like an "activist judge"?

    Nobody is talking about making these people naturalized citizens. That's what naturalization means. Naturalization doesn't mean walking across a line.

    Your weak premise that the fed gov has the power to determine who can cross an imaginary line has already been debunked multiple times.

    So which is it, are you simply a statist who wants to give power to the federal govt over people regardless of what their Constitutional powers allow, or are you a believer in a living document model for the Constitution?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The Constitution gives Congress and the President the power to regulate naturalization and immigration.

    Article I, sections 8 & 9.

    Luckily, in my head I store things that are true. You however, FEELZ conclusions and then find imaginary rationale to argue.

    As usual, you open border people get routed every time.

    You can change the constitution. Good luck with that.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    Article 1, Section 8 defines enumerated powers. Congress has the power over Naturalization.
    Naturalization - Naturalization is the legal act or process by which a non-citizen in a country may acquire citizenship or nationality of that country.

    Article 1, Section 9 defines limits on the powers of Congress. This includes the limit on the slave trade, A1S1C1.
    Of course, I should point out the irony in your position that a clause which defines the slave trade is being invoked as defending your statist position that the Fed Gov should have power over the free movement of peoples.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Section 9 sure does limit Congress' power to regulate importation of slaves and migration of free persons until 1808.

    After that year, states transferred power to regulate slavery and migration to Congress.

    Oh no! I am discussing slavery which was listed in the US Constitution because it was LEGAL until 1865. Your little SJW tactic of trying to intimidate people from discussing issues of history and law because America used slaves until 1865, is as bad as your arguments for open borders.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    Not making any comment on the US and legality of slavery. I'm merely pointing out that you would be willing to have the Government lord over personal liberty (free movement of peoples) and that you think this power comes from a clause that actually limited Congress' ability to regulate the slave trade.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    If it was not clear from my numerous posts here, I want a balance of maximum Liberty and limited government.

    I do NOT want government to "lord" over personal liberty. I also don't want anarchy.

    This is why I am a Libertarian.

    That Clause limited federal power to regulate migrants and slaves until 1808. After that year, Congress could regulate slaves and migrants. Slavery was outlawed in 1865, so only regulation of immigrants applies today.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    "That Clause limited federal power to regulate migrants and slaves until 1808. After that year, Congress could regulate slaves and migrants. Slavery was outlawed in 1865, so only regulation of immigrants applies today."

    Citation needed.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Citation: Leo has difficulty reading.

  • BYODB||

    You're both missing the point, in that the Progressives have installed a vast Rube Goldberg machine into American society that puts a huge onus on employers and employees both that is specifically and explicitly to put illegal immigrants (or migrants, whatever you want to call them) out of work.

    Our entire labor system top to bottom is literally there to keep these people from working, and you'll note no one at all is suggesting any changes to that. So...what is your fucking point? That people should be allowed to the cross the border only to be faced with no possible legal work? Gee, that sounds like a great idea!

    Both sides of the immigration debate apparently have zero idea that they're talking about the wrong thing entirely. The minor fact that this same system has the bonus of pricing legal low-skill labor out of the market entirely seems lost on a lot of people.

  • Justin C||

    Incidentally, there is no line in the constitution that delegates any power whatsoever regarding immigration to the Federal government.

    Since the commerce clause prohibits the power to restrict the flow of people between states by the states, that means that the power to make decisions about immigration lies where it should: With free people making decisions about what to do with their own property and in their own lives.

    If you "love" the constitution, you should love that.

    Oh, the irony.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    US Constitution, Article I, Section 9:
    The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.

    That gives Congress the authority to regulate migrants (immigrants) after 1808.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    Nothing better than quoting a limitation on Congress' powers in the slave trade as an argument FOR your position.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    And migrants (immigrants). Don't forget migrants are mentioned in that clause.

    Nothing will ever change the fact that the Constitution, that forms the supreme law in the USA, allowed slavery until 1865.

    We still get to limit government using that same document.

  • John||

    That is just untrue. Section 8 Clause 3 gives the Congress the exclusive power to establish uniform rules of Naturalization. Congress also has complete power over foreign trade and power over war and foreign relations. You put that altogether and Congress clearly has the power to determine who can enter the country and remove foreign nationals. If it did not, its powers over foreign commerce would be a dead letter. You can't control foreign trade without controlling who can enter the country to trade. Its foreign policy and war powers would also be a dead letter. It is long established law and was at the time of the founding that nations had the power to detain and remove foreign aliens of countries at which they were at war. Under your reading of the Constitution, Congress could not do that, only the states could. The ability to prevent aliens from entering its borders has been an inherent power of government since Westphalia. It was recognized at the time of the founding and the founders knew it. The reason why they didn't put an immigration clause into Article I was because it never occured to the Founders that anyone would be dumb enough to think that a national government that was given the power over war, foreign, trade, citizenship, and foreign affairs did not also have the power to control who entered its borders or to remove foreign aliens who did so when the national interests required it.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    You are simply wrong. Prior to the mid-1800s immigration was a state issue.

    "You can't control foreign trade without controlling who can enter the country to trade."
    That's BS. You think that a farmer hiring a non-citizen worker, or a private store allowing a non-citizen to shop there is within the purview of the Fed Gov because it constitutes foreign trade? Remind me who is the party of big government again? Who is the party that supports a "living" Constitution again?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    You are actually wrong. Until 1808, migration of free persons and importation of slaves was a state power.

    After 1808, it became a federal power.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    Anybody who think A1S9C1 applies to anything but slave trade is
    wrong.
    wrong.
    wrong.

    Provide a link that supports your position, or please stop spreading this #FakeNews.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    You're wrong. It says it in perfect English.

    You are citing people who are "interpreting" Constitution and they refuse to read basic English. Just like these same type of people with the 2nd Amendment.

    All I can tell you for a citation is to read Article I, Section 9 over and over or take some English classes.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    Certainly there's 1 other constitutional expert out there that knows how to read? Can you at least find him/her and provide a quote?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I don't need what you call "experts" on the Constitution.

    The words in the constitution are all I need to have the better argument than you.

  • John||

    You are wrong about that. It was a state issue because the feds had not asserted itself. There was no need to do so. The moment the feds did, the courts ruled it had the exclusive power. Just because the feds chose not to exercise its power doesn't mean the power doesn't exist. Hell, the Feds could make it a state issue today if they wanted to. The point is that they do not have to.

  • JoeBlow123||

    So if certain states say no to immigrants is that ok? Like if Arizona says "No thank you" to Mexico and deports everyone?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    States cannot deport anyone. Immigration and naturalization power is entrusted in the federal government after 1808.

  • damikesc||

    The SCOTUS ruled on AZ enforcing federal immigration law when Obama did not want to.

    AZ lost that case. So, no, immigration is exclusively federal.

    That kind of answers the bitching of the open borders crowd.

  • John||

    I would also point out that giving states the power over immigration when combined with the prohibition of states controlling interstate travel and commerce would effectively mean completely open borders and no control over immigration by anyone. It does no good for one state to prohibit immigration when other states can allow it and the states which don't can't prohibit the immigration from traveling to their states once they enter the country.

    Saying Congress has no power to control or prohibit immigration is effectively saying the founders gave away the country's sovereign rights when they drafted the Constitution. And that is idiotic. And it is something that no reasonable person would believe for any reason other than a fanatical commitment to absolute open borders. It is just a stupid fucking argument.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    There are multiple clauses in the Constitution that the Founders added to prevent inter-state problems. States fighting over import and export taxes between states and who gets to enter and leave would create a mess and burden trade between states.

    As you say John, some of these things were given to the federal government to manage for good reason.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    The word you are looking for is 'illegal':

    Why Sweden doesn't keep stats on ethnicity and crime
    "In 1991 when the centre-right government decided it wanted to get rid of Statistics Sweden (SCB) – which was seen as an expression of social democracy – they moved the responsibility for statistics to different bodies, which meant crime statistics were moved to the National Council on Crime Prevention (Brå). At that point the stats we spoke about earlier disappeared."

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    Re: Longtorso, Johnny,

    The word you are looking for is 'illegal'


    Hey, Statist, when you start calling unlicensed drivers "illegal drivers" and people who shack up together without marrying "illegal married couples", come back and talk about semantics. A person can't be illegal. Laws regulate ACTIONS, not persons.

  • sarcasmic||

    Laws regulate ACTIONS, not persons.

    While I agree with you, I'll play devil's advocate for a minute. One might argue that the ACTION was crossing an imaginary line without permission from men who use violence without consquence.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    You either support property rights of a nation or you don't.

    You clearly don't.

  • Justin C||

    "Nations" don't have property rights. People have property rights. Artificially restricting immigration infringes on the real property rights of actual Americans, like so much of what governments do.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    All territory that consists of the United State of America is sovereign property of the federal government. The states gave up the absolute power to control their territory when the Constitution was ratified.

    Luckily, the federal government is a government of the People for the People, so all Americans control the federal and state governments.

    Americans in a majority have duly elected our representatives to control immigration on our behalf.

  • ||

    "Nations" don't have property rights. People have property rights.

    "Corporations" don't have property rights. People have property rights. "Cooperatives" don't have property rights. People have property rights. "Communes" don't have property rights. People have property rights. "Property" doesn't have property rights. People have property rights.

    It's a Constitutionally-mandated Federal Republic and not even the most batshit crazy of open borders batshit crazies supports/represents anything near what you're suggesting. If you don't like it, GTFO. Good luck finding an imaginary safe space that inherently defends your moronic ideology without existing.

  • Shirley Knott||

    Nations have no property rights.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The USA does. Each state has property rights and gave some of that power to the federal government to administer all territory that forms the United States.

    US Constitution, preamble:
    We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

    Also Article IV.

    I guess they just want to defend words on paper not territory and a free way of life.

  • sarcasmic||

    I'm trying to figure out how that preamble refutes what Knott said. So far I have failed.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I know Sarcasmic. Reading is HARD for you.

    The Founders wanted to set up a nation that wants to defend itself but cannot because there are no "imaginary lines".

    You people are not fooling anyone but yourselves. I can do this all week long.

  • sarcasmic||

    You do know that the borders were pretty much open until Wilson, don't you? I'm pretty sure Glenn Beck hates Wilson.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    So you admit there are borders and Americans allowed the borders "were pretty much open".

    They were not completely open, is also what you are saying. Americans chose that policy and have chosen a different policy recently.

    Thanks for admitting defeat.

  • sarcasmic||

    Americans chose that policy and have chosen a different policy recently.

    Society and government are not synonyms.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I just wonder where you will put those goal posts next?

    Italics and nonsense are not synonyms.

  • leninsmummy||

    When it comes to making laws your point is pretty much moot since they come from government not society.

  • sarcasmic||

    Thanks for admitting defeat.

    Defeat? No. I will never stop poking you with a stick when you deserve it.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    See, you think violence is the answer.

    You have a bad argument for open borders and get shredded every time.

  • sarcasmic||

    See, you think violence is the answer.

    You are the one who wants to sic men with guns on people who don't have the proper paperwork.

  • sarcasmic||

    You have a bad argument for open borders and get shredded every time.

    When have I made an argument for open borders? Please, enlighten me.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    You're an anarchist. You don't want any borders because there should be zero government.

    People can do whatever they want, is anarchy.

  • sarcasmic||

    Dude.... You must be new here. I have had many an argument with the anarchists on this board. They will tell you that I am not one of them.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    You said you were an anarchist.

    sarcasmic|5.10.18 @ 9:55AM|#
    I never said what my stance is on immigration. And no I'm not an anarchist. I accept that there will always be a gang of men with the last word in violence who will use that power to steal. I'm a minarchist.
  • sarcasmic||

    No, I said I am a minarchist.

    Here: http://bfy.tw/I4Dw

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I am not clicking that because it does not let me know what website it goes to in the link.

    Anarchy has a negative connotation, so you try and twist the way anarchy looks. Its not fooling anyone.

  • Shirley Knott||

    It doesn't, of course.
    Mr. Social Contract needs to read Spooner.
    He needs to understand that contracts require the free consent of all parties.
    Etc.
    But he's delighted to be a slaver, which requires that he ignore, and generally debase, the meanings of the concepts he tosses around.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Is Spooner a signer to the Constitution?

    Spooner is a theoretical philospher.

    He was also a moron. He said that the Northern states were using military force to prevent Southern state from seceding.

    The South attacked federal forces on April 12, 1861, when Confederate forces fired upon Fort Sumter. That is why Union forces used military force to subdue the CSA.

    Who knows if the North would have let the CSA remain independent without using military force to reunite the United States.

  • BYODB||

    Minarchists still believe in statism, just minimal statism. It's not an anarchist philosophy. You can look that shit up on Wikipedia if you don't trust his link (and I don't trust shortened links at work, either.)

  • sarcasmic||

    Immigration is not a property rights issue. It's a permission issue.

    You clearly believe that freedom means asking permission and obeying orders.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    To enter the USA, yup non-Americans need permission to enter US property.

    You clearly believe that freedom means not asking for permission to enter property and not abiding by constitutional laws created by a duly elected branch of the US government.

  • sarcasmic||

    So all legislation is good and just simply because we are allowed to vote?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    If its constitutional... then its legal.

    Good and simple are subjective terms that mean nothing legally.

    If you don't like a law- get it declared unconstitutional, violate it and possibly suffer the consequences, follow the law, or change the Constitution.

    Under our system of government, those are your choices.

  • sarcasmic||

    How are you able to talk with that authority-dick in your mouth?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    That only took you about 10 of your loser posts to resort to dick jokes.

    Some kind of record.

    I cannot remember. Aren't you an anarchist? Anarchists love open borders because they don't want any government.

  • sarcasmic||

    I never said what my stance is on immigration. And no I'm not an anarchist. I accept that there will always be a gang of men with the last word in violence who will use that power to steal. I'm a minarchist.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    So Nanarchist?

    Anarchy is the position that there should be zero government.

    You don't want borders because there should be no governments to control said borders. You don't want property rights because there should be no government to recognize property rights.

    Good luck with that.

    Just own that you are an anarchist and hate Libertarians for being for property rights, rule of law, and small limited government.

  • sarcasmic||

    Anarchy means "no archon." It doesn't mean no rules. It means no ruler. No one enforcing the rules with violence. Believe it or not rules can exist without violence. However I'm not an anarchist. Like I said above, I accept that it is not possible. There will always be people like you who will band together and use violence to impose your will upon otherwise peaceful people.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    No rule of law. In other words, no government. Government enforces the rules.

    The key is limited government with the government working for the people and can be controlled by the people. The people in return follow the laws that are based on a supreme law (constitution).

    People give up some freedoms to form a small government.

  • sarcasmic||

    What part of I'm a minarchist, not an anarchist do you not understand?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Its anarchist.

    You want zero government.

    If you want some form of government, you are not an "archist" anything.

    The fact that you are getting so defensive that I am not buying into your load of crap, is indicative of people who try and change meanings of words because people think anarchists are fools.

  • sarcasmic||

    You want zero government.

    Fine then. I guess all conversation between us is done. You obviously know me better than myself. No point in talking if you're going to contradict what I say about myself.

    While we're at it, you must be a Nazi because you want armed agents of the state to quiz everyone for their papers, and use violence upon anyone who can't show that they have proper permission.
    You must hate Jews too.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    It has been done for some time. You keep moving the goal posts and refuse to own up to not wanting government nor rules.

    You keep trying to change words to avoid being seen as the anarchist you are.

    I hate everyone equally. I hate Nazis (socialists), anarchists, jews, blacks, indians, whites, asians....

  • sarcasmic||

    You keep trying to change words to avoid being seen as the anarchist you are.

    And you are a Nazi who wants to exterminate millions of people because they can't show their papers.

  • sarcasmic||

    I hate everyone equally. I hate Nazis (socialists), anarchists, jews, blacks, indians, whites, asians....

    No you don't. You hate Jews. Just Jews. You want to kill them all because they control the banking system and run the shadow government. Only you know the truth. That they're really lizard people. That show V in the 80s was a documentary. It's true. They're stealing our water and harvesting people for food.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I thought you were done.

    Somehow you managed to completely shift a discussion of immigrants to discussing your hatred of jews.

    Good thing the Jewish-Americans have a US government to protect them from anarchists like you.

  • sarcasmic||

    You are the one who hates Jews. Don't contradict me you fucking knave. You hate Jews and you know they are really lizard people. Stealing our water and our women.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I wish you and your anarchist friends would explain to Reason readers why you want to exterminate the jews like the Nazi socialists did.

  • sarcasmic||

    You seem to be so good at telling me what I think, despite what I say that I think. Why not do it for me?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I thought you were done. Funny how dunces who say they are done are never done.

    They always get owned and then cannot stand no having the last nonsensical word.

  • Plopper||

    loveconstitution1789|5.10.18 @ 10:53AM
    If you want some form of government, you are not an "archist" anything

    I just died laughing... like I can barely even fucking breathe.

    This guy is almost certainly some kind of minarchist too, that's the funniest thing of all.

    Arche (/ˈɑːrki/; Ancient Greek: ἀρχή) is a Greek word which came to mean "first place, power", "method of government", "empire, realm", "authorities".
  • makattak||

    You're right. We really ought to refer to them as "Criminal Aliens".

    I suspect it was first changed because that sounded too harsh. But I'm more than will to use that, if it will make you happy.

  • MichaeI Hihn||

    America is the largest nation of criminals in the world, so they should fit right in?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Largest nation of criminal thanks to the Nanny-Staters and their enactment of crimes.

  • MichaeI Hihn||

    The law is the law, LC. Written down by by nanny state politicians which deserve respect. Social contract. Don't like it - adios, amigo.

    It's like this politicians telling everyone what to do thing is only good when it's something we like, and otherwise we hate the arbitrary stupid meddling.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Rule of Law is what we have. The alternative is everyone gets to do whatever they want for any reason.

    Change the laws you don't like. Convince others to help you.

    Or.... you can argue nonsense on Reason.com and continue to get owned.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    The laws say that you have to wait to purchase a firearm, and that you can't purchase an automatic firearm.

    The laws say that a woman can kill a fetus for any reason she chooses.

    The laws say that Congress can tax millionaire income at a really high rate, and give that money to people for sitting at home.

    So, you're for the rule of law no matter what?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The Constitution says that government cannot infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. So, gun control laws are illegal, void and unconstitutional.

    You cannot "kill" something that is not alive under the definition of murder. I don't murder my seamen every time it shoots out of my dick.

    Income Taxation was made constitutional by the 16th Amendment.

    Don't like it contact you elected representative and/or convince other Americans to help you change the constitutional laws.

  • mpercy||

    You know, it IS possible to disagree with laws and advocate changing them while STILL not violating them while they are in effect.

    For instance, I think that laws preventing me from owning an automatic firearm are unconstitutional and wrong, but I have made no effort to try to purchase one because I'd rather not face the penalties that accrue with violating the law.

    Seeking a rule-of-law common ground is not at all the same thing as saying "all laws are good laws".

  • MichaeI Hihn||

    Or.... you can argue nonsense on Reason.com and continue to get owned.

    If you have to claim it, you might not have it.

    The alternative is everyone gets to do whatever they want for any reason.

    Your argument is that bureaucrats, cops, you know, the DNC and Hillary, Mueller... all abide by the law conspicuously. I'm just checking that you really want to commit to this.

    I mean, I can see how you would like this to be the situation. I just can't see how this IS the situation. People already do whatever they want for any reason. The rule of law is a myth - a nice story, and yet just a story.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    You're right, Hillary violated federal law my mishandling classified information.

  • Azathoth!!||

    I think you're not understanding.

    LC1789 is saying that there's a mechanism in place to change things.

    If you don't like something, a law, a statute, the Founders saw fit, in the Constitution, to provide a way whereby that thing might be changed.

    Want the borders opened? There's a way to do that! There's even a way to make guns illegal!

    Problem is, if you wanna change things for everybody, them you need most everybody's support.

    And you all don't really have that. So you've gotta pretend that he's in the wrong.

    But he's not.

    Borders aren't imaginary lines--they're property lines. Just as valid as the property lines around your property. It doesn't stop being private property if it has multiple owners, does it?

    Well then.

    And then there's the other thing. You didn't come in to this game at the start. You joined while it was going. You got to customize your character, but someone else set the base parameters. There are ways to alter them(see above) but you don't just get to act as if the game has to restart every time a new character spawns.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    They know that changing the Constitution is relatively impossible for them.

    Any amendment banning guns would be blasted and would never get ratified by 3/4 of the states. Then all gun control would be laughed out of existence. It would also show that even gun grabbers know that they need a constitutional amendment to have gun control.

    They chose to go the incrementalism route which has been more successful in the past.

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    Re: makattak,

    You're right. We really ought to refer to them as "Criminal Aliens".


    Only if they committed an actual CRIME, otherwise you would have to show consistency and say that drivers who do not have a valid driver's license are Criminal Drivers or that homosexuals who shacked up together during the very recent good ol days of Sodomy Laws were Criminal Fornicators.

    Idiot.

  • VinniUSMC||

    People driving without licenses are breaking the law. They are criminal drivers. What is your point? Do you even have one?

  • Nardz||

    Old Mexican has declared that everything he owns, including land, is up for grabs.
    After all, like people illegally crossing the border, if you can it's just.

  • damikesc||

    Hey, Statist, when you start calling unlicensed drivers "illegal drivers"

    I know you're a troll and all... but does anybody dispute that a driver with no license is not legally permitted to drive?

  • colorblindkid||

    I don't understand why we can't have a rational conversation about this without both sides using hyperbole. This article is as silly as Trump's claims.

  • ThomasD||

    Entirely predictable given that Trump is in their heads 24/7.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    ThomasD, thanks for making the point. Your hyperbole has been noted.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Billions in free publicity...again.

  • DJF||

    """"The Honduran "caravan" is more scared than scary, consisting of a bedraggled, footsore group of unfortunates who fled violence and poverty in the hope of gaining asylum in the United States."""

    No they are hoping to gain Welfare payments in the United States. Under treaty law they must be allowed to receive all Welfare payments available

    That is why they did not ask for asylum in Mexico who don't give such large payments.

    But Reason does not care since they are a non-profit and don't pay for welfare.

  • sarcasmic||

    Are they after welfare or are they stealing jobs? I can't keep up.

  • ThomasD||

    Embrace the power of AND.

  • Justin C||

    Embrace the power of recognizing contradictions.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    They are just violating immigration law. Deport them.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    "No they are hoping to gain Welfare payments in the United States"

    If that's the problem, then push to reform the welfare laws. Restricting individual freedom to solve a spending problem (if that's truly the motivation) doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense to me.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    "Restricting individual freedom to solve a spending problem (if that's truly the motivation) doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense to me."

    If that's a problem push to reform immigration laws.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    That's the point of this and the many articles on immigration and personal freedom.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Yeah. I mean you and your open border folks sure are becoming more less popular. Your argument are really landing with the majority of Americans.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    If you think that the opinions of the majority of Americans are greater than the natural rights of individuals, then I guess I'll never win this argument with you.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    In the USA, some natural rights are protected. Some are not.

    Some natural rights are left to states to protect.

    Freedom of movement as a natural right is limited by national boundaries as far as the USA is concerned.

  • Azathoth!!||

    If you think that the opinions of the majority of Americans are greater than the natural rights of individuals, then I guess I'll never win this argument with you.

    But there is no natural right to free movement. Nearly every living thing, plant, animal, virus that we have ever encountered attacks individuals that cross into or try to enter or take their territory.

    And that is where the natural right lies-- you have the natural right to defend yourself, your loved ones and your and their property.

    You do not have a natural right to the property of others. Whether it be their bodies, their loved ones, their worldly goods or their territory.

  • Earth Skeptic||

    Yes, that is an essential part of the problem. Running a welfare state with open borders seems like a losing proposition. At the very least, it violates biases about generousity within the in-group. And it looks economically unsustainable.

  • damikesc||

    So, Leo apparently has a home with a wide open door that he never closes.

    Why should HE be allowed to limit individual freedom, after all?

  • ||

    No they are hoping to gain Welfare payments in the United States. Under treaty law they must be allowed to receive all Welfare payments available

    That is why they did not ask for asylum in Mexico who don't give such large payments.

    But Reason does not care since they are a non-profit and don't pay for welfare.

    It was brought up that asylum seekers under international law can't seek asylum anyplace but the first safe country. It was correctly pointed out that this was untrue. Conveniently skipped over in the narrative is that no haven is required to actually house them internally. That is, if Hondurans flee to Mexico and on to the US and the US decides to ship them back to Mexico (or even Honduras at a later date) it's not just well within the conventions and law to do so, the conventions and law are written as such. This is how Australia housed the refugees on Manus Island and shipped them off to the US. By law, Australia owes (owed) precisely dick to the refugees on Manus Island.

  • Jerryskids||

    Anybody willing to risk their lives crossing hostile terrain with little more than the clothes on their back in order to get to a foreign country where they don't speak the language and they're widely hated, just for the opportunity to get a shitty job is already an American in my book. What the fuck risks have you ever taken to deserve your place at the table? You're here because you hit the lottery when your daddy knocked up your momma, and now you're going to talk shit about the people who are willing to bust their ass trying to earn just a little of what fell into your lap? You're talking shit about people who have the guts and the drive and the determination to better themselves, demonstrate the gumption your immigrant ancestors possessed but is so sorely lacking in your fat lazy dumb ass, and you're proud of that? Pathetic.

  • sarcasmic||

    Anybody willing to risk their lives crossing hostile terrain with little more than the clothes on their back in order to get to a foreign country where they don't speak the language and they're widely hated, just for the opportunity to get a shitty job is already an American in my book.

    Well said.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Luckily, that is not how people become Americans and you, by yourself, don't get to decide who becomes Americans.

  • sarcasmic||

    Way to appeal to authority. Well done.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    At least I have an authority.

    You just FEELZ that people should be able to enter any country's property they wish.

    Well done.

  • sarcasmic||

    I never said what my stance is on immigration. I was simply poking you with a stick.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    "I was simply poking you with a stick."

    Violence is what anarchists are good at.

  • sarcasmic||

    By the way, power and authority are not synonyms.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Are you doing proper maintenance on your goal post moving machine?

  • ThomasD||

    Yes, I'm sure you feel exactly the same way about anyone willing to break into your home and clean out all your shit for their family/

  • ThomasD||

    And spare me the idea that the burglar(s) have violated the NAP.

    Because so have the illegals.

    You just choose to see the harm done to you while ignoring all the harms done by illegals.

    Harms that are documented every day.

    Murder
    Vehicular homicide/DUI
    Assorted other crimes of violence
    Bruglary
    Fraud

    The list goes on.

    They've broken in here, which is a crime as surely as breaking into your pad. Their continued presence is a crime that enables the perpetration of many other harms.

    You not only turn a blind eye, you seek to glorify them, about the same as the old yokels tried to glorify Bonnie and Clyde.

    Genius!

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    Murder
    Vehicular homicide/DUI
    Assorted other crimes of violence
    Bruglary
    Fraud

    Which of these do you think that every immigrant has committed? Because citizens also commit these crimes then who should be punished, all citizens or just the ones committing these crimes?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    He didn't say every illegals does those things.

    Every illegal violates federal immigration law. 100% of them. Every single illegal is a criminal.

  • mpercy||

    Charity and goodwill means seeing a man in need and inviting him into my home for food and shelter.

    But if instead the same man crawls through an open window and helps himself to the contents of my pantry and trashes my home, then my calling the police and hoping he goes to jail is not a crime against humanity.

    About 1M such good people successfully use the pathways to citizenship that the US's charity and goodwill provides each and every year.

    But anyone who just jumps a border or overstays a temporary visa has chosen from day one to give the middle finger to the laws of the US is no better than breaking into my house.

  • The Laissez-Ferret||

    Okay that's fine, but if they're that hard working they can't have government assistance of any kind, they can't show up at an emergency room for a head cold, and if they break any laws which apply to current citizens, they get deported.

  • MichaeI Hihn||

    Well said, Jerry. Nicely put.

  • John||

    Anybody willing to risk their lives crossing hostile terrain with little more than the clothes on their back in order to get to a foreign country where they don't speak the language and they're widely hated, just for the opportunity to get a shitty job is already an American in my book.

    Okay, but that doesn't describe all of these people. And they are hardly, 'widely hated'. Go find me any instances of hate crimes against illegal aliens. They are welcomed with open arms, given access to welfare, public schools for their kids, and a variety of other public services that are undreamed of in their home countries.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Even the Americans who want to secure the borders more and make illegals follow immigration law don't hate illegals.

    Socialists hate dissidents which is why they kill them. Americans deport illegals.

  • mpercy||

    People who played by the rules and followed the path to legal immigration and citizenship don't generally have warm fuzzy feelings for illegal aliens.

  • leninsmummy||

    Thanks for the emotions. When you grow up come back and make a rational argument.

  • ||

    You're here because you hit the lottery when your daddy knocked up your momma, and now you're going to talk shit about the people who are willing to bust their ass trying to earn just a little of what fell into your lap?

    I don't normally disagree with you, but this statement demonstrates a profound ignorance of biology and statistics.

  • Star1988||

    That's why immigrants make the best Americans. Always have.

  • Star1988||

    That's why immigrants make the best Americans. Always have.

  • hpearce||

    " the presence of undocumented foreigners enhances public safety."

    Of course this based on Chapman's support for the socialist idea that public property is public to the world with his open borders idea
    After all, how do people enter into a country freely when they have no ownership at all in the property ?

    Public property is property the state has decided it has the right to manage for the public OR people actually believe the property is owned by the state. The second idea I openly reject.

    SO who is the public - anyone in the world that wishes to use to use it so that we can have open borders ?
    Or is it the property of the the public in the U.S. that has paid for the maintenance and creation/enhancement of these properties ( along with guests in the country) ?

    The latter concept makes public property in the U.S. "private" for the public in the citizens the U.S. - and trespassing for those simply who decided to cross the border. This brings back the initial claim that people who trespass enhance our security as Chapman claims

    Chapman and his garbage socialism - along with some other key people at Reason - had better re-examine their ideas that they probably never closely considered to begin with. I certainly do not consider them libertarian.

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    Re: hpearce,

    Of course this based on Chapman's support for the socialist idea that public property is public to the world with his open borders idea


    Did that strawman whimper a lot while you were beating its straw out? Did you get off on that?

  • hpearce||

    S0 that is your answer ?

    That property rights are just a straw-man ?

    Sounds like a true socialist

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Be careful. There are anarchists here and they are for open borders too. Anything that brings down our form of government is okay with them too.

  • hpearce||

    Well you just met one who is an opponent of coercive monopolies like the state!

    I do support voluntary government and do not consider myself an anarchist for that reason

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    Re: hpearce,

    That property rights are just a straw-man ?


    WHOSE property rights? Property is not collective. You're conflating two completely different things to then accuse Chapman of being a "socialist".

  • hpearce||

    I said that in my opening comment that public property is owned bey the public of that country.
    Pinning it down to specific people other than that is not possible under a coercive monopoly like the state

  • MichaeI Hihn||

    The state does own the land. Public property is a polite fiction. That's why they can throw the public off "public" land any time they like.

    Not that this will change anything. That's not how the human brain works, lol. Tell your limbic system I said hi.

  • hpearce||

    Only if you believe the state is a valid entity rather than a coercive monpoly that simply takes what it wants

  • Mark22||

    "There are 300 kids and 400 women. Babies with bibs and milk bottles, not armaments. How much of a threat can they be?"

    These single mothers will require tens of thousands of dollars a year each in government services and contribute next to nothing; the money for that is extracted, if necessary at gunpoint, from US tax payers.

    And their traumatized kids growing up without a father will end up in gangs, doing drugs, and largely become welfare dependent themselves for life.

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    Re: Mark22,

    These single mothers will require tens of thousands of dollars a year each in government services and contribute next to nothing


    Liar.

    Your xenophobia and attempts at removing humanity out of those immigrants notwithstanding, immigrants contribute much more to the economy than the native-born of the same socio-economic level.

  • makattak||

    ...than the native-born of the same socio-economic level.

    And that's the catch, isn't it? These immigrants actually have a higher crime rate than the general population, so to avoid admitting that, you limit it to "socio-economic level."

    (I'll also note you avoided the race angle this time, but that's another dodge that is used.)

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    Re: makattak,

    These immigrants actually have a higher crime rate than the general population


    What? You lie! That's a lie!

    Don't even bother linking to the fraudulent C. I. S. They're known for being the S. P. L. C. of the right-wing xenophobes as they play fast and loose with statistics by conflating populations.

  • makattak||

    Don't even bother linking to the fraudulent C. I. S. They're known for being the S. P. L. C. of the right-wing xenophobes as they play fast and loose with statistics by conflating populations.

    Really? Can you detail your objections to the study beyond "Conflating populations"?

    I can give you the details of my objections. Every one of the studies that show Criminal Aliens as less likely to commit crimes compare them only to similar populations in the United States- either by race/ethnicity/or socio-economic group.

    Those studies themselves (and I will bet the referenced one her does, too) show that the criminal aliens have a higher rate of criminality than the rate in the existing U.S. population.

  • Mark22||

    Liar.

    You can easily verify that what I said is true. Look up how much it costs to raise a single child. Look up the average earnings of unskilled single moms with no English skills. Do the math.

    Your xenophobia

    Why would I be xenophobic? I have no problem with Mexicans or Mexico, I have no problem with legal, law abiding, tax paying immigrants from Mexico. As a legal immigrant who spent decades getting naturalized, I have a problem with people illegally present in the US no matter where they are from.

    attempts at removing humanity out of those immigrants notwithstanding

    I'm not "removing their humanity". They can be human anywhere they can be legally present. I'm objecting to them coming to the US illegally.

    immigrants

    We are talking about illegal migrants or refugees here; neither of those groups are immigrants.

    contribute much more to the economy than the native-born of the same socio-economic level

    The native-born population at their level is the beneficiary of massive government redistribution, a huge social problem we need to address. It is insane to add to that problem by increasing the size of that population.

    Old Mexican, let's face it: you are a bigot, a racist, and a xenophobe; heck you even wear it as a matter of pride in your nickname.

  • Mark22||

    Old Mexican ... you even wear it as a matter of pride in your nickname.

    I'm assuming here that you are a naturalized US citizen or someone with Mexican ancestry who is referring to his race and origins. For an American to behave that way makes you a bigot and a racist. I think it's deplorable.

    The other two possibilities are that you are actually an "Old Mexican", that you are in the US present illegally or that you reside in Mexico and just try to influence US politics in your favor. In those cases, your opinion on US immigration policy is merely self-serving and irrelevant.

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    Re: Mark22,

    I'm assuming here that you are a naturalized US citizen or someone with Mexican ancestry


    Is it something normal for you, to assume irrelevant things?

  • Mark22||

    Is it something normal for you, to assume irrelevant things?

    So which is it, "Old Mexican"? Are you (1) a Mexican citizen? Or are you (2) an American citizen who thinks of himself as being apart from other Americans because of his race?

    If it's (1), your desire to influence American politics to advance your economic interests is understandable, though we can simply ignore you.

    If it's (2), you're simply a racist prick.

    Based on your comments, I suspect it's the latter, but you have a chance to salvage your reputation somewhat.

  • John||

    Yeah Mexican, single motherhood and kids growing up without fathers is a real problem in this society. And that is true regardless of the race of the mother and child. Sorry but your racist notion that Hispanics are just better than Americans white and black and thus things like single motherhood don't matter when it is Hispanics, is like all racist notions bullshit. Take your La Raza race theories elsewhere.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Your xenophobia, Mark22, is made manifest you state with certainty that these migrants WILL (not "might", but WILL) become welfare deadbeats, and that their kids WILL (not "might", but WILL) turn into gangbangers and drug addicts. You assume the worst possible scenario about this group of people because of who they are and where they come from. You drop the pretense of making some sort of statistical argument and are just stating generalizations as fact. When you stop pointing your finger at large groups of people, composed of unique individuals, and saying "THEY'RE BAD PEOPLE", then maybe we can have a productive discussion.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Wanting to control your borders does not make someone a xenophobe.

  • Mark22||

    Your xenophobia, Mark22, is made manifest you state with certainty that these migrants WILL (not "might", but WILL) become welfare deadbeats, and that their kids WILL (not "might", but WILL) turn into gangbangers and drug addicts. You assume the worst possible scenario about this group of people because of who they are and where they come from.

    No, I make a statistical statement about a group. That group is single mothers and fatherless kids. Such demographics perform very poorly. Nowhere did I say "because of where they are from". Nor is that a "worst possible scenario", it's a statistical fact. That fact translates into massive drains on the US welfare system.

    When you stop pointing your finger at large groups of people, composed of unique individuals, and saying "THEY'RE BAD PEOPLE"

    I didn't say "they're bad people"; I really don't care whether they are good people or bad people, what I care about is that they will, on average, impose massive costs on the US government.

    And I agree that immigration should be discussed on an individual basis, but it is Chapman who collectivized these people, not me.

  • makattak||

    You know what else makes us safer?

    The internet.
    Cell phones.
    Flat Screen TVs.
    Amazon.
    Smart phones.
    Rear view cameras.
    Police Body Cameras.
    The WWF changing it's name to WWE.

    All of these are ALSO correlated with a massive drop in crime.

    So, every day that I shop on Amazon, is a day I'm contributing to a safer country.

  • bevis the lumberjack||

    I'm not a foaming at the mouth anti-immigration type, and I don't like SOME of what Trump's ICE is doing. And I agree that the stuff Trump and Sessions are saying is dumb and inflammatory, as pretty much all political rhetoric is these days.

    But that said, this article uses classic "confuse correlation and causation" logic. I mean, during the spike in illegal immigration in the '90s the planet got warmer, so I suppose we should conclude that illegals cause global warming or climate change or whatever they're calling it now. Right?

  • MichaeI Hihn||

    Excellent point. Teen pregnancy also dropped drastically in the 90's. The immigrants took er behbeis too.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    You will need a citation because Mexicans love big families.

  • MichaeI Hihn||

    Did you know that our brain's reward system fires one off for aggressive behavior toward a perceived outgroup? It feels good. Really, it's amazing the things we've been discovering about the brain in the last decade.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Hihn's not using his brain again.

  • Mark22||

    In 1990, there were about 3.5 million undocumented foreigners in this country, and the national murder rate was 9.4 per 100,000 people. When the undocumented population peaked at 12.2 million in 2007, the murder rate was 5.6 per 100,000—a decline of 40 percent—and it has fallen more since then

    Yes, and it would be even lower without illegal immigrants. The difference between US and European murder rates is largely due to murders committed by blacks and Hispanics, and new Hispanic immigrants assimilate into the same culture of violence that produces high native Hispanic murder rates.

    Policy analyst Alex Nowrasteh of the libertarian Cato Institute examined the evidence on crime from Texas. He found that unauthorized foreigners were about half as likely as native-born Americans to be convicted of a crime and one-quarter less likely to be convicted of murder. Their overall arrest rate was 40 percent below that of people born in this country.

    That is after removing immigration violations from the mix and "correcting" for demographics, and after failing to correct for the fact that we are dealing with a population that is necessarily excellent at avoiding detection by authorities. In different words, Nowrasteh's analysis isn't just wrong, it is deceptive and fraudulent.

  • Earth Skeptic||

    Actually, murder rates within the 50 states and DC do not correlate with percent Hispanic population. (They do correlate strongly with percent Black population.)

  • Mark22||

    The actual homicide rates by race/ethnicity of perpetrator are known, and it is much higher for Hispanics than for whites.

    The state correlations you mention are good example of how correlations at the state level are often misleading and shouldn't be used. Look up Simpson's paradox for one problem with this.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    That's also failing to account for the practice of "sanctuary" areas refusing to enforce laws against illegal aliens lest it result in them coming to the attention of the immigration services.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Far from generating crime, this group appears to suppress it. A groundbreaking new state-by-state study covering 1990 to 2014 by sociologists Michael Light of the University of Wisconsin-Madison and Ty Miller of Purdue in the journal Criminology concludes that "undocumented immigration over this period is generally associated with decreasing violence."

    In another study, Light, Miller, and Brian Kelly (also of Purdue) found that "increased undocumented immigration was significantly associated with reductions in drug arrests, drug overdose deaths, and DUI arrests."

    This data is surely being misrepresented.

    If adding more people made less violence, fewer drug arrests, and fewer DUI arrests in absolute terms, then the added people would be perpetrating negative violence, negative drug arrests, and be arrested for DUI a negative number of times.

    It is physically impossible to be arrested a negative number of times. Illegal aliens aren't going around un-murdering people.

    It may be that illegal aliens perpetrate these things at a lower positive rate than native born Americans of the same economic level (which is what's actually happening), but it's intellectually dishonest to suggest that adding more of something in absolute terms creates less of it--when it's only bringing down the average.

  • creech||

    Well said,Ken. We are supposed to believe, I guess, that the influx of immigrants who commit crimes is driving our domestic criminals out of business. Not only are they taking our jerbs, they are taking our crimes!

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Yet every illegal who commits violence is one person that the USA could actually prevent from committing violence in the America. If they were not here because they are non-Americans, they would have never committed the crime in the USA.

  • ThomasD||

    " it's intellectually dishonest to suggest that adding more of something in absolute terms creates less of it--when it's only bringing down the average."

    The site is becoming a pathetic embarrassment to what it once was.

    Hive Minds and Managed Markets indeed.

  • KevinP||

    I came here to make this very comment but you have already articulated it far better!

    And also see this article:

    Undocumented Immigrants, U.S. Citizens, and Convicted Criminals in Arizona


    Quotes:
    Using newly released detailed data on the Arizona state prison from January 1985 through June 2017, we are able to separate non-U.S. citizens by whether they are illegal or legal residents. Undocumented immigrants are at least 142% more likely to be convicted of a crime than other Arizonans. They also tend to commit more serious crimes and serve 10.5% longer sentences, more likely to be classified as dangerous, and 45% more likely to be gang members than U.S. citizens.
    ...
    Young convicts are especially likely to be undocumented immigrants. While undocumented immigrants from 15 to 35 years of age make up slightly over two percent of the Arizona population, they make up about eight percent of the prison population. Even after adjusting for the fact that young people commit crime at higher rates, young undocumented immigrants commit crime at twice the rate of young U.S. citizens. These undocumented immigrants also tend to commit more serious crimes.

    If undocumented immigrants committed crime nationally as they do in Arizona, in 2016 they would have been responsible for over 1,000 more murders, 5,200 rapes, 8,900 robberies, 25,300 aggravated assaults, and 26,900 burglaries.
  • lap83||

    "Undocumented Immigrants Make America Safer"

    Yes, of course. Why stop at "immigrants are always an economic net benefit"? They also have magic crime fighting powers

  • sarcasmic||

    I think you're confusing immigrants with Deadpool.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Illegals "lower" crime!

    Hahaha.

  • sarcasmic||

    I just watched the trailer for Deadpool 2. I'm not waiting until it comes out of video. No fucking way.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Spoiler.... Deadpool is a Mexican.

  • sarcasmic||

    Then you better not watch the movie. Wouldn't want to support brown people.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I hate all people equally.

    Deadpool movies are amusing.

  • sarcasmic||

    No. You hate Jews. You are a Nazi. You want our police to speak German.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    We all know anarchists hate Jews, Sarcasmic.

    Good thing the American rule of law protects Jewish-Americans from anarchists like you.

  • sarcasmic||

    Why do you want to exterminate the Jews? Do you still beat your wife?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Sarcasmic, why are you still insisting on all your anarchist friends to beat your jewish slave wife?

  • sarcasmic||

    She isn't my slave. She can come and go as she pleases.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    So you beat her on the way in or on the way out?

    She is jewish and you hate you some jews.

  • sarcasmic||

    You tell me. You're the one at my door.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Why do you have a door since anyone can go wherever they want to?

    No rule of law, no property rights.

  • The Laissez-Ferret||

    It's not just their magic crime fighting abilities. They pick magic apples in the fields which are more expensive than regular apples and totally offset the cost of all the taxpayer funded bennies they receive and the numerous trips to emergency rooms for head colds! It's magic all the way down!!!

  • MikeP2||

    Ah, the simple joy of cherry-picking statistics to make a political point that is laughable on its face to anyone with half a brain.

  • sarcasmic||

    For a moment I thought you were talking about cherry-picking statists who worship authority when it suits them.

  • John||

    Reason pimpled these studies a few days ago. And they don't mean what reason is claiming. The studies look at crime in arbitrarily defined areas where illegal immigrants settle. Illegals don't settle in good areas. And Illegals, being one arrest away from deportation, keep their heads down. That does not mean that illegals are safer than the general population. It means they are less criminal than the lowest ends of the population who live in the areas they settle. It also doesn't mean that giving them legal status won't change things. If they are no longer in danger of deportation, they are likely to be less worried about being arrested and will commit more crimes. Deterrence matters. But Reason doesn't understand that because it has bought into what amounts to a form of racial supremacy theory that says Hispanics are naturally superior and less to white and especially black Americans.

  • sarcasmic||

    Deterrence matters.

    People who commit crimes don't count on being caught. Deterrence doesn't matter a whit.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Anarchy is a much better strategy.

  • sarcasmic||

    Straw men are made of straw.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Says the guy who tries to convince people, unsuccessfully, that minarchists are not Anarchists.

  • sarcasmic||

    Minarchism is a libertarian political philosophy which advocates for the state to exist solely to provide a very small number of services. A popular model of the state proposed by minarchists is known as the night-watchman state, in which the only governmental functions are to protect citizens from aggression, theft, breach of contract and fraud as defined by property laws, limiting it to three institutions: the military, the police and courts. The word "minarchist" was coined by Samuel Edward Konkin III in 1980.[1] It differs from anarchism in that it is not completely based on voluntary association. "Minarchy" is a contraction of "minimum" and -archy. Arche (/ˈɑːrki/; Ancient Greek: ἀρχή) is a Greek word which came to mean "first place, power", "method of government", "empire, realm", "authorities" (in plural: ἀρχαί), "command".[2]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minarchism

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Bullshit.

    Libertarianism exists to advocate for small limited government. Classic liberalism does that too.

    If you want limited government then you are not an "archist" of any type.

    You want no rules, then no government.

    You're not fooling anyone.

  • sarcasmic||

    If you want limited government then you are not an "archist" of any type.
    .
    .
    .
    Arche (/ˈɑːrki/; Ancient Greek: ἀρχή) is a Greek word which came to mean "first place, power", "method of government", "empire, realm", "authorities" (in plural: ἀρχαί), "command"

    An "archist" who recognizes the Greek word that means "method of government" wants no government.

    Sure dood. Go back to high school and learn your Greek roots. Dunce.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I thought you were done there dummy.

    minarchist is not a word. Thanks for admitting defeat.

    Nobody is fooled by lefties and anarchists trying to alter words to avoid the opinion that you people are wackos.

    Socialism has never worked and neither has anarchy. Changing words will never alter that fact.

  • sarcasmic||

    I'm done conversing with you. We are not conversing. You are telling me what I think and I am telling you what you think. Like a married couple.

    Should we consummate this?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Yet, you still are commenting. I thought you were done?

  • sarcasmic||

    minarchist is not a word.

    Now you're appealing to authority again.

    When people come up with a new concept, like a minimal state, they come up with a word to describe it. That's how language works.

  • sarcasmic||

    Yet, you still are commenting. I thought you were done?

    I'm done being reasonable.

  • sarcasmic||

    Doesn't matter. You are an authority worshiping statist who pretends to be a libertarian. You refuse to comprehend concepts when they are spelled out to you. I don't know if you have a fat head or a thick skull. The result is the same.

    G'day fucker.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Libertarians are advocates for small limited government. Libertarians are not statists.

    See statist means:
    stat·ist
    noun: statist; plural noun: statists
    1. an advocate of a political system in which the state has substantial centralized control over social and economic affairs.

    You really need to brush up on definitions.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Sarcasmic, you were never reasonable in what you said.

    You are an anarchist and won't admit it or you are something else because you want limited government.

  • Tony||

    Well this is the cutest thing I've ever seen.

  • sarcasmic||

    Well this is the cutest thing I've ever seen.

    I know it. He's even more obtuse than you or John. Hard to imagine.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Tony, its nice for you to like securing the border too.

  • Nardz||

    Don't night watchmen keep people from breaking into buildings?

  • leninsmummy||

    Red tape and taxes are all about deterrence and we can see they work quite well to slow down business, send them out of the US and stamp out competition.

  • VinniUSMC||

    Right. Work their way through Mexico to apply for asylum in the US. That's not how it works.

  • Robert||

    TL;DR, & besides it's Chapman, but is the thesis that it's the illegal status of hese people thqat makes them safer? If that's so, why not just declare everybody an outlaw, & then we'll all be so careful not to step out of line that we'll all be the safer?

  • leninsmummy||

    I'm not sure why the arguments on this site always revolve around the freedoms of undocumented immigrants while I have to kiss the government ring to go anywhere or do anything. A lot of citizens are sick of the double standards everywhere and this is really one of the most obvious ones.

    A consistent argument would be that no one should need papers to leave or arrive, everyone in the world is entitled to the USA's entitlements as long as they can make their way across our border, and foreign citizens should be able to both vote and buy influence in our elections.

    If someone who wasn't supposed to be here commits ONE act of violence it's already a tragedy for that family and that person. To say that the ARREST RATE among illegals is 40% below natives is totally irrelevant. Arrest doesn't even equal guilt. Along with his loose correlations about crime in the USA falling in general his argument is weakly pathetic.

  • Harvard||

    Hush. Borders are not borders because butterflies can fly over them, Old Beaner said so. Strive, will you, to Make America As Great As Fucking Mexico. This caravan came because they are in fear for their lives damn you to hell! Why the fuck they didn't squat 20 miles north of the south Mexican border is a mystery to me to is no business of yours you slaver, statist, marxian, Trumpista. The only reason you exist is to shit on brownies.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    I'm not sure why the arguments on this site always revolve around the freedoms of undocumented immigrants while I have to kiss the government ring to go anywhere or do anything. A lot of citizens are sick of the double standards everywhere and this is really one of the most obvious ones.

    Your post is just like the Uber article yesterday. Uber vehicles (unregulated) and cabs (regulated) are being treated much differently. Why does the solution have to be to make Uber regulated? Why can't we make cabs unregulated instead?

    Likewise, why do we have to curtail immigrants' freedoms to even things out? Why can't we advocate for non-immigrants to gain more freedom instead?

  • dr ricardo||

    Mr. Chapman, you completely miss the point. Other than the U.S. name one developed country that knowingly allows illegals to stay ? We have laws that are not being enforced and by definition that is anarchy.

  • Harvard||

    Give me a hint. Is it Mexico?

  • KevinP||

    How does Mexico treat foreigners and immigrants? Here is one answer:

    80% of migrant women crossing Mexico are raped there

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    That's not the definition of anarchy. Take it from an anarchist.

    Regardless, the "laws are on the books" argument is circular. Libertarians (including the party platform) are advocating for the law to be changed. So you can't hang your hat on the laws are already there. It would be like if you said "I'm against gun control laws" and I responded with "Gun control laws should be enforced." It's not a rebuttal, it's a non sequitur.

  • BYODB||

    What, still no explanation for why illegal immigrants are more resistant to crime than citizens?


    Not that Trump and the wall builders are telling the truth either, mind you, but the idea that illegal aliens are somehow magically better men and women than citizens is a ludicrous claim and it's amazing to me that people swallow it uncritically.


    Do Reason authors also believe that certain genealogies of humanity are magical in other ways too? Perhaps Asians are immune to thoughts of dissent?


    Sheesh. So much for 'reason', this seems more like 'emote'.

  • Tony||

    If the penalty for committing a crime was not a $200 ticket but deportation to the specific place you fled from, you'd probably mind your Ps and Qs a little more than average.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Americans don't have to worry about being deported.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    That's his point.

  • Nardz||

    Shit!

    No way in hell they're sending me back to Maryland!

  • SomeDude68||

    The headline's statement is nonsense after comparing the crime ratios of America's dwindling PRIMARY ethnic group, Caucasions, to Latinos.
    -- Crime ratios are lowest for Asians, followed by Caucasians, third are Latinos, and forth are African Americans. Mathematically & logically speaking, this means MORE of the significantly higher (300%) crime ratios of Latinos, versus the comparability very LOW crime rate of America's largest ethic group, are INCREASING the overall crime rate for ALL of America.
    --- New York displays them well, with - THIS crime report (link). Over 40% of NY City is Caucasian, one would believe there would be more Caucasian crimes. However, that is NOT the case, at all. In fact, people of Latin origin are over 350% MORE likely to commit a crime than Asians & 300% more likely than the current majority, Caucasians.
    ---- Even the FBI, who combines Latino AND Caucasians into the same misleading "White" category (link)., when reporting crimes... it is EASY to see WHO has the FBI's focus (link).

  • TJJ2000||

    False statement, "they can go into the business of making horror movies—which, like these claims, are not rooted in reality."

    Perhaps its just the area that I live in but there is no denying that about 90% of criminal theft and break-ins in my region are committed by illegal immigrants and/or even including temporary work visa carriers.

    So, maybe in some parts its not "rooted in reality", I'll grant the author that since I DON'T KNOW - but it certainly is a HORROR MOVIE in other parts.

  • EirkKengaard||

    see the LAPD most wanted list. Or HHS OIG most wanted. Quite obviously not mostly 5th generation Americans. Also, see studies that show children of one immigrant group commit crimes at twice the rate of the general population.
    See "The Second Generation in Early Adulthood: New Findings from the Children of Immigrants Longitudinal Study"

  • EirkKengaard||

    Nothing has done more to diminish the quality of life for the United States middle class through higher housing (land) costs, greater competition for jobs, lower wages, higher taxes to pay for greater poverty, mortgage fraud, medicare fraud, tax fraud, other crime, higher taxes to pay for indigent healthcare (hospital closings), higher taxes for cost of public schools, price of college, degradation of the military, depletion of resources, burden on the taxpayer and overall congestion than the INCREASE of and change in the nature (more poor, more criminals, e pluribus multum) of the POPULATION since 1965, driven almost entirely by late 20th century entry of migrants (immigrants, illegals, h1b visa holders, visa overstays, refugees, etc) their families and descendants.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    This is the most anti-free market, anti-free association post I've read on Reason in weeks. You have a laundry list of justifications for economic and social intervention by a third party (government), which is the very basis for authoritarianism.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Another meeting of Libertarians For Bigoted, Authoritarian Immigration Policies has convened.

    These faux libertarians conduct so many meetings it's difficult to understand how they find time for voter suppression, drug warring, gay-bashing, harassment of abortion clinics, racial profiling, etc.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Libertarians are too busy standing up for rule of law, free markets, freedom of association, free speech, gun rights, and property rights.

  • damikesc||

    Well, Reason has decided to stop worrying about association rights because it might make gay marriage advocates cry.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    Libertarians are too busy standing up for rule of law

    I think you mean conservatives. This isn't inherently a libertarian stance. All you need to do is read Bastiat to realize that.

  • Benitacanova||

    I knew the headline had to be a joke, but it was even more hilarious than I'd imagined!

  • damikesc||

    The Honduran "caravan" is more scared than scary, consisting of a bedraggled, footsore group of unfortunates who fled violence and poverty in the hope of gaining asylum in the United States.

    Yet, legally, they should have gotten asylum in Mexico. You don't get to pick and choose. You get asylum in the first country you come to.

  • damikesc||

    I want to see if I get this logic here.

    Americans are, apparently, criminals. Almost all of us.

    We need illegals to make us good people. The more illegals we have, the less crime we have. Explaining why Mexico and Honduras are known for being free of crime. Also makes it odd that they would leave to come to a criminal hellhole like the US.

    This is SERIOUSLY the spin Reason is going for here.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    Explaining why Mexico and Honduras are known for being free of crime.

    Illegal immigrants come from more places than just Mexico and Honduras. Also, the type of person who is likely to leave those places to come to the United States, even illegally, is typically less likely to be a criminal than the type of person who is content to stay (or too poor to leave).

    Also makes it odd that they would leave to come to a criminal hellhole like the US.

    I could ask you the same question. Why do you willingly choose to stay in the United States when the violent crime rate in Canada is so much lower?

  • Azathoth!!||

    It's REALLY hard to immigrate to Canada.

    They're EXTREMELY picky about who they left become citizens.

    I've a friend who was born there, to American parents, has lived there all their life, and who still needed a sponsor to get the Canadian equivalent of a green card.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    Is that the main reason people don't flee the violent US?

  • Star1988||

    That is nonsense. B.C. is awash with birth tourists from China who pay large sums to have their children born in local hospitals so that they get Canadian citizenship.

    Expired TPS folks from El Salvador (and soon Honduras) are flowing over the border into Quebec.

  • Iheartskeet||

    Unfortunately, another poorly reasoned Reason article with lightweight (when not totally wrong) analysis.

    First, that crime declined overall even as illegal immigration increased DOES NOT mean they contributed to this decline. It could be true (and as noted below probably is) that illegal immigrants are very violent, but that their crime simply didn't make the overall stats budge, given that they are

  • Iheartskeet||

    3% of the population.

    Second, it references a Cato article by Alex Nowrateh on Texas. Hmmm. Why the one state ? Why Texas ? I'll tell you why.

    Alex ran a debunking of an article by Peter Kirsanow at NR. It was re-printed here at Reason. In it, Alex says Kirsanow did his math wrong, conflating "incarcerations" with "incarcerated". Alex proceeded to say that Kirsanow overstated illegal immigrant crime because he subtracted legal incarcerated from total incarcerations (which include multiple arrests) thereby inflating the number of illegal incarcerations. BUT HE DID NOT. Instead, he subtracted illegal incarcerations. This means that, although Kirsanow indeed did his math wrong, it was wrong in that it put illegal immigrant crime in the BEST POSSIBLE LIGHT. In fact, illegal immigrant is likely even worse than Kirsanow wrote.

  • Iheartskeet||

    3% of the population.

    Second, it references a Cato article by Alex Nowrateh on Texas. Hmmm. Why the one state ? Why Texas ? I'll tell you why.

    Alex ran a debunking of an article by Peter Kirsanow at NR. It was re-printed here at Reason. In it, Alex says Kirsanow did his math wrong, conflating "incarcerations" with "incarcerated". Alex proceeded to say that Kirsanow overstated illegal immigrant crime because he subtracted legal incarcerated from total incarcerations (which include multiple arrests) thereby inflating the number of illegal incarcerations. BUT HE DID NOT. Instead, he subtracted illegal incarcerations. This means that, although Kirsanow indeed did his math wrong, it was wrong in that it put illegal immigrant crime in the BEST POSSIBLE LIGHT. In fact, illegal immigrant is likely even worse than Kirsanow wrote.

  • Iheartskeet||

    And Texas ? Of the 5 stats Kirsanow examined, 2 (TX and FL) had lower illegal immigrant homicide rates than natives, the other three were higher. Overall for all 5 stats, illegal immigrants had a homicide rate 34% higher than natives. And it quite likely is much higher than that. So, Alex seems to be cherry picking.

    Three, while we're on the topic of cherry picking, where are the studies by John Lott regarding illegal immigrant homicide ?

    This isn't the Reason magazine I remember. Its a group that surrenders facts to drive an agenda. Shame.

  • Kivlor||

    Pot and Mexican ass-sex is Reason's bread and circuses.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    Three, while we're on the topic of cherry picking, where are the studies by John Lott regarding illegal immigrant homicide ?

    It's funny, I googled "John Lott studies immigration" after reading your post and the first study that came up was entitled "Undocumented Immigrants, U.S. Citizens, and Convicted Criminals in Arizona". You argue that the Texas study was cherry picking. Arizona is apparently immune.

    Could you explain what you mean by "best possible light". I didn't follow.

  • Iheartskeet||

    I argue that picking one state and ignoring others with different outcomes is cherry picking. I offer up the Lott study that has different outcomes. I note the Kirsanow article had states with higher AND LOWER immigrant crime rates than natives. I am for looking at all the available data. You, however, seem to be going out of your way to be a dick.

    On the best possible light, I read the Kirsanow article and Alex's critique of it. Alex says Kirsenow subtracted legal crime from the total, when Kirsenow's state-by-state analysis actually subtracted illegal crime from the total. Therefore, the issue of repeat incarcerations means Kirsanow's stats are the most favorable treatment for illegals, and the true stats (if we knew them) would be far worse.

    Here is the original Reason article. See my comments which are near the bottom.
    https:// reason.com/archives/ 2018/02/01/ immigrants-and-crime #comment

    I am not a crime scholar, and so if there is an alternate explanation or clarification, I'm all ears.

    What it looks like to me so far, however, is that Reason isn't interested in looking at inconvenient data.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    I'm being a dick by asking you to clarify what you meant? Sheesh. Don't be such an angry republican.

    From what I read from Kirsenow, his main critique was mostly about the fact that the immigration status was estimated (it wasn't directly available in the data set), and that the math being wrong was the cherry on top. We may be reading different articles though.

    Also, just to be clear -- let's not call Lott's paper a citable work. Best I can tell, it did not undergo peer review. This is probably why it contained a mathematical error applied to one of the key variables of note. As a frequent reviewer of scientific journals, I can tell you that the paper I read probably would not have been accepted in a real journal. One of the primary flaws is that he uses a surrogate variable to describe his classifications (and his denominator!) but never offers evidence to support the veracity of that technique. Maybe his hypothesis is absolutely correct -- but his techniques were not sufficient to convincingly make that case.

  • Iheartskeet||

    I'd say you all but accused me of hypocrisy, implying that I cherry picked even as I criticized cherry picking. Thats being a dick. Now you assume I am a Republican. You seem to want to project a lot on people instead of reading what they actually have to say. Thats also a dick move.

    I think we are reading different papers.

    I'd love to see a debate on illegal immigrant crime (SoHo forum ?) as this area seems to have crappy data, with people mixing and matching disparate datasets, and unresolved disputes about it.

    My issue, when I see weak tea like Reason has published above (you haven't commented on the # of illegal immigrants vs the overall crime rate argument) is that it smells of pushing an agenda.

    To me, its perfectly reasonable to

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    I apologize for accusing you of being a republican. I made that assumption based on the fact that you seem to be taking the republican stance on this particular issue. It sounds like my assumption was wrong.

    Anyway, Reason pushes a libertarian agenda in most of the articles they publish. Most articles are editorials, really. I wouldn't call them a news source, and so equal time or objective reporting isn't really their job. However, it's fair to accuse them of failing to accurately capture the opposition's argument, but I don't think they've done that here. Choosing to not include every study ever isn't damning, especially when the study in question is seriously flawed.

  • Iheartskeet||

    They do push an agenda NOW. I remember when they used to be a lot more rigorous about getting it right and, you know, facts. The recent podcast with Nick and Virginia Postrel indicates at least a goal of digging in to an issue deeply. Way back when, anyway.

    I think in past, there was confidence that the deeper one dug, the more a libertarian answer/explanation/solution would emerge. You mention equal time reporting...but really its about confronting facts and opposing arguments. Reason doesn't seem interested in that in any deep way.

    On Lott's article, I can't judge your critique, but if they are going to leave out weak or bad science, then perhaps they ought to leave out their own unpublished, non-peer reviewed, and rather lame assertions that since our overall crime rate dropped even as we have more illegals, that illegals necessarily contribute to lower crime. Having a double standard IS damning.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    I remember when they used to be a lot more rigorous about getting it right and, you know, facts.

    They didn't present facts here? Yes, I will agree that their titles are sensationalist. I will also say that this article is written with too long of a lead up, but the main point was to reference a (peer reviewed) study which analyzed crime rates among both groups. It wasn't their own unsubstantiated assertions -- it was analysis of data. That's quite literally a case of presenting facts to bolster an argument.

    I haven't read the study that they cite, and it sounds like it's correlative more than anything else, so I do have some concerns that they may have been drawing too much from it. But this doesn't strike me as a propaganda piece.

  • Iheartskeet||

    They presented SOME facts.

    Yes, the title is sensational...and its quite representative of assertions in the article body. Its quite a leap to jump from illegal immigrants committing less crime than natives (if this is true) to claiming they make us safer.

    As I pointed out, the cite the Cato article on Texes, which even in Kirsanow's take had lower homicide rates for illegals. So again, how do I know if this one state means anything ?

    It has the strong odor of propaganda to me. As I noted above, this topic is worthy of a healthy live debate.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    Supporters of mass incarceration argue that America locks up more of its own citizenry than any other country in the world because Americans are more violent. If that's the case, then it should be obvious that immigrants from other countries make the United States safer. Proponents of mass incarceration would have you believe that Americans are evil and need to be caged en masse. Yet those very same people claim that people from other countries bring violence to America. It's impossible to reconcile those two views.

    Of course, I don't actually agree with proponents of mass incarceration on this point. The real reason we lock up so many people is because the US government is a human rights abuser. The American people aren't evil or inherently more violent (at least not to the extent that would explain the disparity in incarceration). Rather, Americans are stuck suffering under the yoke of one of the most oppressive governments on the planet.

  • Iheartskeet||

    I don't see "supporters of mass incarceration" so much as proponents of mandatory minimum sentencing and a general law and order crowd.

    We have a high incarceration rate because we have mandatory minimum sentencing/long prison sentences and a black population that as a group is extremely violent/criminal. For sure, mandatory sentencing has gone off the rails (especially for drug crime) and needs to be fixed. Crime in the black population has a lot of explanations...my view being the War on Poverty etc did black families no favors. I am sure others will scream racism (some truth to that), but whatever the explanation, it is what it is. In the end, they are committing crimes and going to jail for them.

    Thats a far cry from being a "human rights abuser". Thats ridiculous hyperbole.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    So with your "black population" comment, you count yourself among the group that considers Americans to be more violent/criminal than other populations. I don't disagree with that (although I won't use the word "criminal" here, because that's circular). But I do disagree with the idea that the more violent nature of Americans accounts for the disparity in incarceration and the disparity in spending. Reason has done a good job of breaking down the source of high incarceration, and you're right that mandatory minimums are a big reason. So is incentivization of prosecutors for getting guilty pleas, outrageous enforcement spending, and the war on inanimate objects (guns, drugs, etc).

    If you're wondering, and you probably aren't, I think the main reason for the more violent trends in the black community are related to the very same trends we see in the poor community. The US is a wealthy country (especially if you use mean as your metric), but wealth disparity is huge. Also, there's evidence that the effects of poverty are relative -- consumerism and materialism and the ways they're promoted not only help encourage the perception of poverty but also exacerbate it.

    btw - I'm not advocating for progressive programs or shit like that. I'm just pointing out that income disparity has been proven to cause problems re: violence and theft. Fortunately, I think libertarianism has a solution for income disparity. Reason has talked about that a lot too.

  • Iheartskeet||

    Well it depends on who you mean by "other populations". We clearly have a homicide rate that is worse than some and better than others. Its also true that black people drive up our homicide rate. So, our level of violence makes SOME difference in the incarceration rate.

    I don't disagree that the other things you've listed also contribute, though plenty of other countries have those issues too. Perhaps corrupt policing in other countries contributes to LOWER incarceration (you just pay a bribe).

    I don't agree that income disparity necessitates higher crime among the poor, or rather haven't seen evidence of such. It doesn't strike me as intuitively true, nor do I think libertarianism "cares" about income disparity per se, or sees it as a problem to solve. I am far more a believer in the decline in the black family unit as an explanation, which plenty has been written about.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    So, our level of violence makes SOME difference in the incarceration rate.

    Sure does. But not all of the difference. And not most of the difference either.

    But you're correct. It's possible that these other countries have corrupt policing -- or incompetent policing, or underfunded policing, etc. And so the incarceration numbers are low because the policing is "bad". But when they're still achieving lower murder and violent crime reporting rates (which are mostly independent of policing) with those so-called policing deficiencies, then I think it demonstrates that "bad" policing is perfectly fine. I would actually argue that "bad" policing is good policing. We should be striving for bad policing. Bad policing would also completely solve our deficit problem, but that's another topic.

    There's a ton of data out there about income disparity and the impact on crime. You can google it or if you have trouble finding something, I can link you to some papers on this area. True, libertarianism doesn't care about income disparity, or even about good economic outcomes. Libertarianism cares about one thing -- the non-aggression principle. These other things, like income disparity and good economic outcomes, are the side benefits of libertarianism. And like it or not, those are the things that resonate with people. People for the most part don't give two shits about the NAP.

  • Iheartskeet||

    You lost me at "should be striving for bad policing" and thinking it will solve our budget deficit.

  • Star1988||

    "Rather, Americans are stuck suffering under the yoke of one of the most oppressive governments on the planet."

    That's a bit of hyperbole. It might be the most oppressive government in the west, but certainly not on the planet. One has much more reason to fear the authorities in the US than they do say in Australia, Switzerland or Canada. But there is no comparison to China or North Korea.

  • Star1988||

    "Rather, Americans are stuck suffering under the yoke of one of the most oppressive governments on the planet."

    That's a bit of hyperbole. It might be the most oppressive government in the west, but certainly not on the planet. One has much more reason to fear the authorities in the US than they do say in Australia, Switzerland or Canada. But there is no comparison to China or North Korea.

  • Kivlor||

    Although this article is A Grade retard, I must admit that it is far less retarded than the typical Chapman article. He at least worked at his dishonesty this time.

    I am curious about the "lower" criminality of illegals... the crime rates of their children skyrocket to typical Latino high crime. So, are the illegals less criminal, do they get caught less, or is there a third option here...? One thought that comes to mind is that criminals often victimize their own demographic more than others, and so if that holds true for illegals, they would be drastically less likely to report being a victim for fear of deportation. This would mean that their brutalizers do not even have anyone reporting their crimes let alone looking for them.

  • Curly4||

    Since the illegals are so much better for the country it must be that these illegals are the victims of the legals It is not the fault of these illegals. All want is a chance to work and supply their families needs.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    Very good questions. You're not the first to ask them. Scientists have examined exactly the type of thing you're thinking about, and showed that even if you account for lower reporting of crime (which you can do two ways -- 1) factor in reporting rates; OR 2) use a proper control group), the illegals still exhibit lower crime rates. Also, when you consider crimes like murder that are generally immune to reporting, it also supports the view of lower rates. Good questions though.

  • woodNfish||

    Hey Chapman, why don't you house about a dozen illegals in your house. I;m sure your wife and family won't mind being gang raped, murdered and robbed.being you dumbass leftist stooge.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    Three Trumpisms in one post. Nice work!

  • Curly4||

    Well these immigrants could be just as beneficial to the economy if they come into the country legally. So instead of stopping the enforcement of the law and work to change the immigration law so that could come legally. You know the law could be changed even to the extent that anyone that comes into the US and any they could get to the US would be legal. So stop causing disrespect for the law and make immigration easier.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    So instead of stopping the enforcement of the law and work to change the immigration law so that could come legally.

    We're trying. Unfortunately, libertarians are the only political party interested in this, so it's an uphill climb. But there was a time when we were the only party interested in legalizing marijuana, so hopefully one of the major parties comes around on this issue too.

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    I see the numbers but neither the author nor any of the enlightened commenters here offer any basis for correlation. Let me try. I have lived in areas where there were substantial numbers of illegal immigrants and substantial numbers of "safe houses". Did the residents commit crimes? Yes, I know of several that were reported. Could the cops catch them? No, the "residents" were well skilled in moving around on a moment's notice. If arrested, did they go to trial? Only if they were denied bail or if high bail were set. Otherwise it was, in the words of one of our leading criminal court justices, a "revolving door".

    No doubt there is a chunk of that population smart enough to know to "keep your head down". But that hardly means that illegal immigrants are making America safer. That conclusion could be found in any issue of Mother Jones or Vox over the last several years.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    The master criminal theory. Cool.

  • King Rat||

    Your pretzel logic is stunning. What part of illegal don't you comprehend? We should ask the Border Patrol to give out you Chicago address so they all know where to go when they want hand outs.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    Your pretzel logic is stunning. What part of illegal don't you comprehend?

    Said every democrat ever when arguing in favor of their gun control laws.

  • tommhan||

    If Chapman thinks that illegal aliens make America safer he should move into a Hispanic area where there are a lot of MS-13 members for a year to prove it to us.

  • blardo||

    There's an easy fix for this illegal immigration business - make it easier for them to stay here legally. That way we won't have so many illegal immigrants.

  • LifeStrategies||

    When you encourage people to break one law, that teaches them breaking the law is okay in some circumstances, which leads to disregard for other laws.

    The big question is whether you want America to be a law-abiding country, or one that encourages some of its people to be law-breakers aka outlaws. The solution to unjust laws is cancellation - replacement by a more just law.

    But most Americans only support legal immigration, NOT illegal immigration...

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    breaking the law is okay in some circumstances, which leads to disregard for other laws.

    Breaking the law IS ok in some circumstances. Hell, it's ok in most circumstances. Doesn't mean you won't get caught, it just means that there's no equivalence between the law and morality/ethics. Bastiat wrote extensively about that well over a hundred years ago. Libertarians have been citing him for decades.

  • BunkerBill||

    Illegal immigration lowers crime rates. If leftist college professors say so it must be true. they are never wrong about anything.

  • ||

    Reason has replaced The Onion.

  • Peter Schaeffer||

    "Studies" like this suffer from two large problems. Illegals don't typically call themselves "illegal". As a consequence, the number of illegals in the criminal justice system is massively underestimated. The GAO actually studied this issue. See GAO report GAO-11-187. Illegals are around 3% of the U.S. population, but around 10% of the prisoners. So much for the "fake news" about low-crime illegals.

    However, the real problem is worse. Crime rates rise astoundingly from the first generation (born abroad) to the second generation (born here). The second generation has neither the skills for "good" jobs nor the willingness to do "bad" jobs for low wages (competing with the next wave of illegals of course). Inevitably, very high crime rates are a consequence. Don't believe me? Check the Migration Policy Institute (a pro-illegal lobby) for the numbers. For example, MPI claims that crime rates go up by a factor of 7 for the children of Mexican immigrants.

    Unless Reason has some secret plan to prevent immigrants from having children, the U.S. is importing crime on a massive scale. That's bad. However, we are also importing societal failure which is even worse.

  • J555||

    He told you the source. GAO report GAO-11-187

    https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-187

  • vek||

    Bullshit!

    Look at crime stats by Hispanics in general. They're disproportionately represented for murders, assaults etc. If the numbers aren't total BS in the first place, the only reason they're lower than "native born" is because that number includes blacks! Blacks commit murders at 4 times their percentage of the population.

    So yeah, hispanics are less bad than ghetto blacks, but that isn't exactly the bar most have in their minds. If a ton of Hispanics move into a whiteish or Asian area, crime goes up. Period. I know, this happened to my home town in Cali. It's a shithole now.

  • gbear||

    In my experience, nothing makes a more careful driver than those who do not have a driver's license.

  • J555||

    The president and his attorney general ignore the real dangers posed by most undocumented foreigners: They will fill jobs that Americans don't want, learn English, pay taxes, and stay out of trouble. Chilling, huh?

    If Chapman was an actual libertarian instead of just a whore for corporate interests posing as a libertarian, he might notice that the danger of illegal immigrants is that they will turn the US into another corrupt Latin-American style banana republic, like Mexico or Venezuela. There are plenty of signs that we're already heading rapidly in that direction.

    We don't know the full details of crime by illegals, because the government (which is so obsessed with gathering statistics on every other topic) is trying hard not to know. But it's certain that crime in America would be lower than it currently is if there were no illegals in the country.

  • J555||

    ... unauthorized foreigners were about half as likely as native-born Americans to be convicted of a crime..

    When you consider the fact that one hundred percent of those "unauthorized foreigners" are breaking the law, this little stat says a lot more about our reluctance to prosecute illegal immigrants than it does about their scrupulous adherence to our laws.

    This excuse for an argument reminds me of the way the Left will insist that there is no election fraud ...because virtually nobody ever gets caught and prosecuted for it.

  • JustCurious||

    According to the GAO (http://www.gao.gov/assets/320/316959.pdf), as of 2011 we had around 351,000 criminal aliens that had been convicted and sentenced to prison. Though it's hard to get accurate numbers (seems the government doesn't want us to know how many illegals are in our jails and prisons) here's no reason to think those numbers have dramatically changed in the last few years.

    If we have 2 million people locked up (federal & state prisons and local jails had about that many in 2011) and you subtract from that number 351,000, the number of native-born & legals in lock ups is around 1,650,000.

    If you subtract the frequently cited number of 11.7M illegal from the American population of around 330M, you get 318M 'legals.' Then, to compare apples to apples, divide the number of criminals by the size of their own group:

    Legal criminals by the legal population: 1,650,000/318M = .005 or 5/1000 or 1 out of 200 Americans is behind bars.

    Illegal criminals by the illegal population: 351,000/11.7M = .03 or 3/100 or 1 out of 33 illegal aliens is behind bars.

    If you use the advocates' numbers (again, 11.7M), illegal immigrants are .035 of the general population (11.7M / 330M = .035 or 3.5%). But they constitute 17.5% of the incarcerated population (351,000 / 2,000,000 = .1755). Isn't that wildly out of proportion? They're overrepresented by a factor of 5.

  • JustCurious||

    Btw, The GAO's estimate of 351,000 incarcerated aliens excludes:
    1. All legal immigrants in state or local prisons;
    2. Convicted illegal aliens for whom the states did not submit reimbursement ​​requests to the federal government;
    3. Prisoners whose country of birth could not be determined;
    4. Immigrants who have been naturalized;
    5. Children born to illegal aliens on​ U.S soil
    6. Immigrants without at least one felony or two misdemeanor convictions;
    7. Immigration detainees;
    8. Illegal immigrants who committed crimes after being amnestied by Reagan in 1986.

    So, if anything, it's probably a low-side estimate.

    Where does this claim that they commit crime at a lower rate than native-born Americans come from? Do people compare apples to oranges by dividing the number of illegal criminals (351,000) by the total population (330M)? That would give you .001 or 1 out of 1,000. That's the only way I can see the "illegals commit crime at a lower rate than native-born Americans" argument being made based on the statistics. But it's a flawed and unfair comparison, isn't it?

  • gulali||

  • jimw||

    Family values begin at home.
    If you're taking subteen children on a thousand mile journey with no destination assured, you're doing them a disservice, and probably using them as a totem to bring you good luck.
    Very unadmirable.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online